Any Bokeh examples from the new 85mm f/1.4 AF-S?

<blockquote>

<p>How about a total lack of background as from a AF-I 400 2.8!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It is not fair to compare background blur between a 400mm lens and a 200mm lens. Longer lens can blur the background more efficiently due to compression.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5036571">Sen C</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Aug 19, 2010; 03:49 p.m.<br>

Just an example for creamy bokeh...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>so Sen, did you blur the foreground in post?</p>

<p>I looked at that photographer's work and saw nothing there that impressed me at all. Looks just like a million other shots you can find on any forum taken by amateurs who shoot everything at wide-open aperture and mostly over-exposed with marginal post processing. Whatever...</p>

<p>There is a time and place where shooting any lens wide open is appropriate for that artistic emotion to be implied, but there are so many more times where the correct way to portray the subject and overall composition is to stop that lens down and paint with light. I do in fact own no lenses slower than f2.8 and most of the time end up shooting them around f4 to f8. Sometimes I will shoot the 200 / 2 wide open (OK, a lot of the time!) but then that lens is just such a radically awesome optic that it almost cries out to shoot it wde open. And is still bleeding sharp at that...</p>

<p>Now as to the new 85 / 1.4, I am sure it will be awesome as well. The current 85 / 1.4 I have in my bag will stay right there. I am totally happy with it. I will have that lens until the day I go away unless stolen or something. Same with my "old" 70-200 VRI. I think way too much emphasis is being placed on the latest / greatest lenses and not enough on improving the photographic skills. One good thing about all these who must have the newest stuff, they surely do help make great glass available on the used market at reasonable prices and that is very good. </p>

<p><strong>"However, distracting bokeh ruins most photos."</strong><br>

I disagree. I think crappy composition and inattention to correctly utilizing camera settings relative to current light conditions ruins most photos, followed by marginal post-processing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rob Sheppard - And Nikon has embraced the Bokian Heresy! "The ultimate optic for professional portraiture."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a "heresy" that they "embraced" a long, long time ago, probably before you were born. My old mentor used to rattle off the phrase "the quality of the out of focus area" like it was one 14 syllable-long word. He shot mostly Leica, but set me up with my original Pentax...</p>

<p>Here's a <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n19_e.htm">discussion about the design of the 8.5cm f1.5</a>, the 1950 predecessor to the 85mm f1.4, from Nikon's own wonderful <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/index.htm">1001 Nikon Nights site</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Namely, the closer the lens is focused to the closest focus distance, the softer the subject image becomes and flare is increasing. It can be said that the characteristic of this seemingly shortcoming is well suited for portraiture or photography of a fixed still subject and the lens delivers an exquisite imaging characteristics...Sample 2 depicts an example for showing how defocus characteristics looks pleasing. Once you take a look at this sample, you could get a pleasing sense of defocus characteristics without lots of explanatory words." (ellipses mine).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Here's what Nikon says about the <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n05_e.htm">development of their 105mm f2.5 Xenotar type</a> (often mistakenly called a "Gauss type") in 1971. Long before we started using the word "bokeh", Lens designers talked about...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"In particular, it delivers a beautiful balance of focused and defocused (blurred) images, as well as higer resolution with natural gradation. The Xenotar-type lens design with the ideal aberration correction made it the perfect lens for portraits."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The discussions about the <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n41_e.htm">design of the 85mm F1.4 AF-D</a> and the <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n32_e.htm">two DC Nikkors</a> are also quite informative. And the fact that the two DC Nikkors existed some 20 years ago also tells you how important this stuff was to Nikon. If memory serves, and it usually does, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax only had one "bokehy" portrait lens each. Nikon's the only major player with two.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rob Sheppard - Right. Most professional portraiture is done in the studio, where you have total control of background placement, contrast, color... Aperture is usually f5.6-8. What the hell has blur got to do with this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm. Let's see now. Checking DOFmaster...</p>

<p>At 10 feet from the subject, the DOF of an 85mm 5.6 on FF is 1.4 ft, evenly distributed in front of and behind the subject, so with the background at 6 feet, it's pretty the hell blurred. The texture of the background changes dramatically with bokeh, and can be clearly seen on anything more interesting than plain seamless. Muslins acquire texture in both their fabric and their painting or dyeing. A seam or a wrinkle will "go away" on a lens with a nice bokeh, or become a distracting double line on a lens with harsh bokeh.</p>

<p>Amazing, isn't it, that when you say "what the hell" does this matter in the studio, that people with a hell of a lot of studio time will answer. (But I'm probably the only person in this thread who's actually taken pictures in Hell. That's Hell, Michigan, just west of Ann Arbor).</p>

<p>To conclude, photographers have been seeking "bokeh" for about a century, Some like it, some don't, but no one needs to listen to someone prattle about "Heresy!" or throw "hell" into the conversation unnecessarily.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Les Berkley - I think the blur is fine and doesn't cause distractions for the viewer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the grass below and to the right of the goat's face looks like it's exploding, and I find it highly distracting. If you hadn't named the lens, I'd have guessed the 200mm f4 micro-Nikkor, it's that harsh.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter Rafle - Which begs the question "is one stop worth a thousand dollars..." :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, back when the difference was only about $700 (I paid about $1000 for my 85mm f1.4 AF-D, back when the f1.8 was about $300) I thought it was. I think nice bokeh is worth owning both an 85mm f1.4 AF-D and a 135mm f2.0 DC. Again, it's all a person's particular style.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ajay Tyagi - How about a total lack of background as from a AF-I 400 2.8!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The AF-I series, at least the 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f2.8, were the masters of Bokeh. I actually traded my 300mm f2.8 AF-S II for a 300mm f2.8 AF-I and a pile of cash.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>CC Chang - It is not fair to compare background blur between a 400mm lens and a 200mm lens. Longer lens can blur the background more efficiently due to compression.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's actually an urban myth. If you frame the subject at the same size (same "reproduction ratio" between the two images) and the subject to background distance is the same, you get the same amount of background blur at the same aperture, regardless of focal length. DOF is weird like that. The reason the 400mm background looks cleaner is because it's got 1/4 the area of the background from the 200mm. And the photographer didn't shoot downward and get very close background into the picture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"However, distracting bokeh ruins most photos."</strong><br /> I disagree. I think crappy composition and inattention to correctly utilizing camera settings relative to current light conditions ruins most photos, followed by marginal post-processing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was speaking of good photos or ok otherwise (composition, camera setting, emotional impact etc...). A poor composed (or harsh, lousy lit) photo can't be save if it had awesome bokeh, that need not be said. There are many elements in a photograph and many ways to ruin them...</p>

<blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=587835">Joseph Wisniewski</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 19, 2010; 08:34 p.m.<br>

Rob Sheppard - And Nikon has embraced the Bokian Heresy! "The ultimate optic for professional portraiture."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey Joseph, that quote was from Les not me! </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>I wish you had not attributed Les' comments about heresy etc to me in your replies. I'm just not the sort of person to get worked up about this type of thing. Heresy is a pretty strong word to use about something that is just not that important in the grand scheme of things. </p>

<p>This should have been atributed to Les:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=587835">Joseph Wisniewski</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 19, 2010; 08:34 p.m.<br>

...each. Nikon's the only major player with two.<br>

<strong>Rob Sheppard</strong> - Right. Most professional portraiture is done in the studio, where you have total control of background placement, contrast, color... Aperture is usually f5.6-8. What the hell has blur got to do with this?<br>

Hmmm. Let's see now. Checking DOFmaster...</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Les seems to take things to the extreme, even threatening to kill people, whereas I have a more live and let live attitude.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=112337">Les Berkley</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 27, 2010; 08:42 p.m.<br>

If you want exceptionally pleasing blur, of course, you need a Dallmeyer Petzval-formula lens from about 1895. It was designed to have a degree (often variable) of under-corrected spherical aberration. (<strong>I will kill the person who calls this UCSA.)</strong> Lovely images are possible with these.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just wanted to set the record straight. </p>

<p>According to my test shots, the new 85 is at least the peer of the old one in terms of bokeh. It is fairly obvious that 'bokeh' was a major design criterion for this lens.</p>

<p>I got the lens this morning and will run my usual tests on it.</p>

<p>Bokeh doesn't matter too much. The only people that look at OOF areas are photographers. There is little doubt that great portraits are taken every day with lenses with bad bokeh. For instance the 50 1.8 is no bokeh star but I love it anyway, for portraits. </p>

<p>Being able to have shallow DOF can be very useful. But if you choose your background with some thought, in terms of distractions, simplicity, and distance behind the subject, it doesn't really matter what aperture you're at. You need some background blur for separation but it doesn't have to be extreme. Lighting & composition & emotion are all far more important than whatever lens you've got on your camera. </p>

<p>Joseph: The comments you quote are not Rob's but mine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bokeh doesn't matter too much. The only people that look at OOF areas are photographers.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As a photographer, i can't make an unbiased opinion on this, but boke is certainly the main criteria for me when I judge a lens a lens. </p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3655/3687969209_819dba85da_o.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="530" /></p>

<p>This shot is an example of bad boke, and really bothers me. I'm not sure how much it bothers non photographers.</p>

<p>I'll post an example... here is a shot with the 50 1.8, if I remember correctly. In any case the bokeh is pretty bad, and you can see it here, but for me at least I like the picture. The question is... would it be a better shot if the lens had better bokeh? And who would notice the difference? I totally agree that bokeh can be 'distracting' and 'smooth', but bokeh is not the magic bullet that it is sometimes made out to be. </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>but bokeh is not the magic bullet that it is sometimes made out to be</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Rob, I take photos for myself, and if others like them, great. But first, I have to like them.</p>

<p>Fair enough! Can't argue there. By the way your B & W gallery here on pnet is really nice!</p>

<p><strong>Last Comments: </strong>On 'bokeh' now or in the future. I have been involved in photography for 45 years, as a 'pro' and a hobbyist. Back in The Day, I read every photo magazine on the stands. Until recently, I simply did not hear much about blur. LF shooters would talk about the plastic qualities of lenses, but only in a wider context. Looking at the work of many people I admired back then, I see few examples where the OOF blur was a significant factor. Overall softness was often used by fine-art shooters--hence the continuing popularity of the Dallmeyer Petzval variants--but rarely was bg blur mentioned or visibly important. The saying was, "F8 and be there," not "F1.4 and tilt it."</p>

<p>Nikon has had a (possibly deserved) reputation for ugly blur. Now they publish articles about how they were 'always' into 'bokeh'. Lens design has been a series of demand-motivated compromises since M. Daguerre. The 'German Lens' (Petzval formula) traded flat field and sharpness for speed (f3.6); this was necessary to shorten portrait exposures on the slow daguerreotype plates. When Pictorialism was replaced by f64 and photojournalistic realism, designers pushed speed and sharpness. If you look at Cartier-Bresson's work, for example, you will see virtually everything in sharp focus.</p>

<p>To some extent this reminds me of what is called <em>audiophilia nervosa</em> by writers like myself. Audiophiles concentrate on all sorts of details like 'air' and 'harmonic rectitude' and 'euphonic colorations'. They switch systems with the ease of a gearhead selling Nikon to buy Canon. Most people just want to hear the music. Sure, there are extremes--the tinny boombox is the audio equivalent of the Kodak Disk Camera, but the difference between two ten-thousand-dollar amplifiers is (if audible at all) utterly insignificant. The same, I will gladly wager, will be true of the new Nikkor 85mm; after all, it is replacing a universally praised 'optic'.</p>

<p>"Its (sic) all good," they say, and so it may be. If enough Gearheads Without Portfolio buy the new, improved lens, then the price of the ancient, now-unbokeh'd version will drop.</p>

<p>As to the current trend for wide-open aperture shots; the cream of the crop will survive as usual. The rest will be dated in five years or so. One last warning to the heretical blur-lovers: I have cat snapshots, and I know how to use them. Beware!</p>

<p><a title="_1010040-2.jpg by wogears, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4910492116_662aff081d.jpg" alt="_1010040-2.jpg" width="400" height="500" /></a></p>

<p>Les, perhaps you've never seen the work of master portrait photographers like Steve McCurry, the famous Natty Geo photog and probably the best portrait photographer on Earth, who don't work in a studio, and who use shallow depth of field to great advantage.</p>

<p>Disclaimer - warning to anyone that spends more than one hour looking through Steve's work. You may never touch your camera again.</p>

<p>Les, if you've only been hearing about Bokeh for a short while, then you must have been conducting photography on a submarine for the better part of a half century. OOF area and Bokeh have been prinmary consideration since I entered photography in the early 80's.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>hmmm...not a particularly inspiring shot from Nikon! But thanks for the link ;)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You think? Actually, if you really know what you're looking at, it's very impressive. Notice the out of focus circular elements. They are all of different brightness, yet they are perfectly round and almost perfectly evenly illuminated. There is no trace of astigmatism. Try that with your run of the mill lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Les, perhaps you've never seen the work of master portrait photographers like Steve McCurry, the famous Natty Geo photog and probably the best portrait photographer on Earth, who don't work in a studio, and who use shallow depth of field to great advantage.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Only a few Dead People are unaware of McCurry. His portraits are very fine, partly because of their shallow DOF. No argument there. But I bet he makes INKJET PRINTS that show the lovely BLUR rather than 'giclée' prints with 'Creamy Bokeh®' :) Also, his Afghanistan images demonstrate that he is ready to use very deep DOF when the context is critical.</p>

<p>Rob, my sincere apologies for the misattribution.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rob Piontek - Bokeh doesn't matter too much. The only people that look at OOF areas are photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One could make that exact same argument for overall sharpness, contrast, distortion, correct colors, or good composition, and be equally wrong. It's more true to say that a photographer is "more likely" to be attuned to all of the attributes that we generally consider to be a "good photograph" than a neophyte is. So, what we do as "good photographers" is try to make sure that as many of the attributes of a photograph are the best that we can make them, in hopes that "something" will get through to the civilians.</p>

<p>Or we could all just chuck the SLRs and adopt camera-phones...</p>

<p>Wow, Les, I just don't know what to say. I read the same magazines as you, "back in the day" and I saw article after article delve into the quality of out of focus areas. I learned from someone that had racked up about 70 years experience by the time he passed, and he's the one who taught me about "the quality of the out of focus areas" in a way that was second only to composition and "the quality of light."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon has had a (possibly deserved) reputation for ugly blur.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's a few from 30-50 years ago.</p>

<ul>

<li>1959 - 10.5cm f2.5 had a great background blur, which only got better with the Xenotar redesign in 1971.</li>

<li>1968 - 45mm f2.8 GN combined lovely blur with an aperture linked to focus for easy flash exposure. It was intended as a tool for event shooters.</li>

<li>1978 - 50mm f1.2 has very pleasing background blur. The spherical aberration was deliberately undercorrected to deliver that, and they gave it Nikon's first 9 blade aperture on a large production lens.</li>

<li>1981 - 85mm f1.4 the manual focus version had legendary bokeh, just like its AF successor.</li>

</ul>

<p>So, yeah, they might have gotten a reputation for ugly blur back in the late 50s, with things like the 50mm f2 or the 58mm f1.4, but they worked hard to change it, because (are you ready for this?) <strong>It mattered to a lot of people.</strong></p>

<p>You can't have it both ways. If, as you say, having a "reputation" for "ugly blur" was something that hurt Nikon, then it is not "heresy" for them to work to correct this.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Okay. Not only will I never mention the god Bo-Keh again, but I will refrain from humor. Yeesh!</p>